Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim: Not considered reliable by them
Abu Ahmad bin Adi Al-Jurjani: There's no harm in him if a trustworthy narrator narrated from him
Abu Al-Qasim bin Bashkwal: Trustworthy
Abu Bakr Al-Bazzar: Acceptable narrator, but he was not consistent in some of his narrations
Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi: Not strong
Abu Hatim Al-Razi: Acceptable, but not that much
Abu Hatim bin Hibban Al-Busti: He narrates from Nafi' and other trustworthy narrators what doesn't resemble their narrations. I believe this was due to his poor memorization. Therefore, I don't deem it permissible to rely on his narrations except for what agrees with the trustworthy narrators
Abu Hafs Umar bin Shaheen: There's no harm in him
Abu Dawud Al-Sijistani: Trustworthy and acceptable, there's no harm in him
Abu Zar'ah Al-Razi: There's no harm in him
Ahmad bin Hanbal: Trustworthy, narrator of authentic hadith. He once said: Truthful, there's no harm in him
Ahmad bin Shu'ayb Al-Nasa'i: There's no harm in him. He once said: Not strong
Ahmad bin Salih Al-Jalili: He is trustworthy
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: Truthful but prone to mistakes
Al-Daraqutni: From Madinah, weak
Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi: He did not consider him acceptable
Ali bin Al-Madini: He was considered trustworthy by us and our companions
Malik bin Anas: I met seventy sheikhs, all of whom were better than Ataaf. I did not write from any of them
Authors of Tahrir Taqrib Al-Tahdhib: Truthful, narrator of acceptable hadith
Yahya bin Ma'in: There's no harm in him, trustworthy, narrator of acceptable hadith. He once said: Weak