[FIX] Styling issues and make RTD build work

[eurunuela]

Closes #967, Closes #961

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Uses type(a) is list instead of type(a) == list.
• Increases the minimum version required for sphinx to 6.2.1 and sphinx_rtd_theme to 1.2.2, which should not use the removed mention of style.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 83.33% and project coverage change: -0.03% ⚠️

Comparison is base (966a262) 88.91% compared to head (18af6fb) 88.88%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #968      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.91%   88.88%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines        3375     3375              
  Branches      618      618              
==========================================
- Hits         3001     3000       -1     
  Misses        227      227              
- Partials      147      148       +1     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
tedana/workflows/ica_reclassify.py	97.79% <50.00%> (ø)
tedana/selection/selection_utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[handwerkerd]

Both this PR and #966 look good to me, but they are separately failing checks (RTD build for this one and style for the RTD fix). Can you combine these changes into a single PR so that all the checks pass before merging? Otherwise I'm fine approving both and merging separately.

[handwerkerd]

LGTM. As I mentioned in a comment, I think it would be better to have one PR with this and #966 so that all checks pass, but I'll approve this in case we decide to merge separately.

[eurunuela]

I can merge this with the other PR tomorrow. But I don't mind if they get merged separately either.

Edit: I will merge them together in the morning if they haven't been merged into main yet.

[eurunuela]

This PR is quite simple and is mostly testing-related. I think 1 approval would be enough.

Thoughts @handwerkerd?

[handwerkerd]

LGTM.
This is fairly minor and holding up a bunch of other PRs. I'll give @tsalo @n-reddy @marco7877 and @dowdlelt a few hours to see if they object and want to check this more carefully. Otherwise, I'll merge with just my approving review.

[dowdlelt]

Super simple, knock it out!