I see no comments on it telling OP to improve something, nor do I see any issues with it except for the lack of shown research and the lack of context.
Although I personally didn't find the above reasons damning enough to close it, I'm not going to say that the closure was incorrect, as there seems to be a great deal of community opinion going into that; factors beyond what the How to ask a good question guideline is currently covering. Therefore, given that I am relatively new to this site, I dont possess enough experience on its workings to determine if the closure was correct or not. That said, one of the possible reasons for closure that I mentioned above is actually featured in that guideline, so I'm not saying this closure was impossible to see for inexperienced users.
What I am going to say, is this: the closure was done incorrectly. Perhaps the comments were deleted, but from what I can tell looking at the post now, no-one told this new contributor that their question wasn't good enough, nor did anyone tell them how to improve it. Isn't that a bad way of going about it?
Sarvesh raised a good question in the comments, which I think I might as well address in this question, as this is not just a question, but a prompt for discussion. Also, by showing my opinion on that matter, those that respond with answers or (counter-)arguments to this post will understand my stance better; with the misunderstandings and idiosyncrasies therein.
I think anyone that sees an issue with a post from a new user, should comment with advice. Here, I mean should as in, it's better if they do, but not that its their obligation.
If someone however votes to close it, I do think they have an obligation to tell the new user what the problem is. To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying they have a moral obligation; I am using a contingent sense of obligation here; if they are committed to trying their best at contributing to the best of their capacity to this site, then they must post a comment telling the new user what the problem is. Why?
Leaving bad question up is bad for the site.
Not gaining new users is bad for the site.
Losing users is bad for the site.
Polarization among users is bad for the site.
How do we navigate these issues in relation to close-voting bad questions posted by new users? We must prohibit the bad question from remaining in its bad form on the site; though we must do so without turning away the new user. We must thread the balance between being strict and being welcoming. We must set clear boundaries without being cold; that means telling the new user, politely and understandingly, that their question is not up-to-par, and how they may improve it.
If we don't do this, the user might (or perhaps is likely to) be discouraged from further posting, and thus we just lost a potential user. That user may leave with the belief that Math.SE or SE in general is an unfriendly place. If enough people gain this belief, it will discourage potential users from ever posting in the first place. If this belief becomes widespread, it will also affect the current users as well. We are a community, which means there is an us, and an other. If the others look down upon us, then a reaction might ensue, in which case we might actually become unfriendly towards new users that are, at least in the beginning, probably a part of the others.
Some users will not like or tolerate this, and simply leave.
However, some users may agree with the criticism but want to stay in their community. So, what do they do? They may become a kind of counter-cultural user, thus gaining the best of both worlds; they remain within their community, but they still express agreement with the criticism and distance themselves from the subject-role of the criticism. If enough users do this, and we gain a nasty polarization that will further confuse new users and discourage them from posting more, and further motivate current users to leave. A community in which different, well-respected members tell you contradictory things about the fundamental workings of the community, is no community at all.
So, again, isn't this a bad way of going about it?