This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I had to reinstate the refimprove tag. While there's not doubt that Geman's papers are highly cited, the footnotes do not address the sentences to which they are attached. Only one of the notes provided establish that Geman himself has "highly cited" ISI rating, not that the particular 1984 paper mentioned is still today one of the most cited articles. This articles needs cites by reliable third party sources, not direct cites of Geman's papers.--Boffob (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't the Google scholar link after the 1984 paper citation address this concern? It returns very clearly a citation count of about 8500 for this paper. 194.95.173.177 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
