Introductions ok as refs for IA?

[filmjolk]

I just found out that I have used a lot of book introductions for my summary of evidence (50%of my refs ). The introductions used also contain NO referencing.

Is this ok?

Maybe something i should mention when evaluating sources?

I'm doing my IA on the peasants in russia during the years of 1917-1918, and there just isn't much there I'm just very confused when I find all the evidence I need in the Introductory part of the books

[Scade]

Well, it might be a bit bad. And there are works on peasants in Russia during that time, for example: Peasant Russia, Civil War: The Volga Countryside in Revolution 1917-21: The Volga Countryside in Revolution, 1917-21 by Orlando Figes. Also the book by him called A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 has some information on peasants in Russia.

[filmjolk]

Please give me another example "[i]except for Oliver Radkey's and Orlando Figes's books on the peasant war in Tambov and Volga regions, respectively, there are no studies of the peasants, the largest class in Russia, or the green movement...[/i]" Brovkin, [u]The Bolsheviks in Russian society [/u]p. 10 | This was also taken from an introduction
So yes, there is few sources in English, the two mentioned above mainly focus on events after summer 1918 such as "the Green movement".

But my problem remains. I'm still using many introductions.
Example 1: I'm using only introductory material from Medvedev's [u]Soviet agriculture[/u].
Example 2:Orlando Figes’ Peasant Russia has refs in the introduction. Introductions with refs = bad/better/ok/good?