File talk:Kate Kelly, sister of Ned Kelly.jpg

Hello, just looking at the pic of Kate Kelly dated 1873 with the comment that it was taken in Adelaide. This does not make sense. Kate was born in 1863, which would make her 10 or 11 years old at the time of this photograph. Also, there's no evidence that she was in Adelaide at this early stage of her life.

Errors

By the dates, Kate would be 10 or 11 years old here. Seems very strange. Also, Wiki heading is also strange. I haven’t read of Kate committing any crime, nor if being outlawed. Thank you. Dillane25 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As the uploader, here are my comments. The metadata for the image can be found here. So it says that on the reverse it has '"Kate Kelly ?" - in ink on the reverse' and '"E. G. Tims, Australian Photographic Co." -- in pencil on the reverse'. So first off there is a question mark. It would seem that there is uncertainty in the identity. This uncertainty could be indicated in the article image. Next, the date of the image was determined by the pencil note of 'E. G. Tims', who was the manager from 1873-1878. What is unusual though is that the remark is in pencil, usually it is a stamp. Here is an example There is no actual date on the image, it's date has been inferred, and there is a possibility that the inference is wrong. If the image is of Kate Kelly, it would probably been taken in the mid 1880's when Kelly was a performer in Adelaide. One of the likely reasons for the Kate Kelly identification is that the subject has the 'Kelly eyes', which Dan Kelly also has. The family resemblance between the subject in the photo and the Kelly brothers is quite distinctive. David.moreno72 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)