Jillaine, I think most published, and online genealogies, fall into this category of needing "more original records". I have seen others on WikiTree describe these types of sources in degrading or insulting terms. I point this out because the words you used are not. Your words are correct and accurate, without any negativity. Thank you.
To quote the author of this book, "I have not thought best to mar the appearance of this book, and to divert the attention of the general reader by frequent references to the authorities from which data have been culled." (page vi)
I think this is the attitude of many authors of genealogy books. This is unfortunate for us, as we are not "the general reader".
This author goes on to say "The History of Royalton is now offered to the public with the hope that, whatever faults it has, they will not be held so near the eye as to obstruct the view of any good it may contain." (page viii)
I think there is "good" in these types of sources and hope "whatever faults it has" will be corrected and documented here on WikiTree.