Abu Ahmad ibn Adi al-Jurjani: Weak, his hadith is written down, but I haven't found a hadith of his that is very rejected, neither in its chain nor text, and I hope he is righteous
Abu al-Qasim ibn Bashkuwal: Shaykh
Abu Hatim al-Razi: His hadith is written down, but not used as evidence
Abu Hatim ibn Hibban al-Busti: He used to be careless in narrations and made mistakes in athar (reports), to the point where he would elevate the status of a Mawqoof hadith, connect a Muqta' hadith, and provide a chain for a Mursal hadith
Abu Dawud al-Sijistani: Weak, narrated few hadiths
Abu Zur'a al-Razi: He was asked about Usama ibn Zayd ibn Aslam and Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, which of them is more preferable to you? He said: Usama is more exemplary
Ahmad ibn Hanbal: His hadith is rejected, he is weak, and once he said: I fear that he may not be strong in hadith
Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb al-Nasa'i: He is not strong
Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Jawzajani: Weak in hadith, but without any corruption in his religion or deviation from the truth with any innovation attributed to him
Ibn al-Jarud: Among those whose hadiths are acceptable
Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani: Weak due to his memorization
Al-Dhahabi: They weakened him
Ali ibn al-Madini: He is trustworthy in our view, but not strong. Our companions have criticized him for some hadiths, and all of the children of Zayd are not among the strong ones. And once he said: There is no trustworthy one among the children of Zayd ibn Aslam
Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari: He is fine. He said in al-Tarikh al-Kabir, he said: Ali ibn al-Madini considered him trustworthy and praised him
Muhammad ibn Sa'd, the scribe of al-Waqidi: He narrated many hadiths, but he is not an authority
Yahya ibn Ma'in: He and his brothers, their hadiths are not of any significance, and once he said: He is not of any significance, and once he said: Weak in hadith