Are all of the sources listed by Wallace credible?

They're credible in that they're actual sources that we use otherwise, yes.

Is it fair to call these sources "hostile"?

In some cases. They're not from Christians, certainly.

But there are issues with particular sources, at least the ones in my area. First, Josephus. This quotes him as saying:

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

The last bit is important. This is a particular reconstruction of what Josephus said. The extant passage has rather clear additions by Christian scribes, who make Josephus sound like a Christian himself (when he obviously wasn't). Some scholars think there's an authentic text that was added on to, such as Meier. But there are others who think the passage was fabricated in its entirety.

From just these passages mentioning Jesus by name, we can conclude the following: Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.

The issue with this is that the Talmud is late (this gives the date as 400-700, which is weird but whatever). It's long after Jesus, so it's not independent attribution. One of those passages is likely polemic. The last is a statement that contradicts the NT narrative so massively that I think it's mocking the NT depiction of the trial (though that's just my view, don't take it too seriously. I wrote here about how the trial of Jesus contradicts Jewish judicial procedure. By discussing Jesus in this context, I tend to think they're repudiating it, pointing out where the NT doesn't make sense).

It's from centuries later, and doesn't seem to be historical. It's definitely hostile, but not independent.

The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)

This is where the article really goes off the rails. Toledot Yeshu is a polemic. It's not even attempting to be historical. It's from a millennium later. It's attempting to mock/parody/satire the Christian narrative. Even if it was meant to be historical, the main sources for it would've been Christian knowledge of Jesus. It doesn't confirm squat, it just says "Jews know what the Christians say about Jesus and don't believe it".

And some factual quibbles: as the article itself notes, the text calls Jesus "yeshu", not "yehoshua". And

(“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”)

Some have thought that it's an acronym for "yemach shemo v'zikhrono"--"may his name and memory be destroyed". But there's no serious reason to think that's the origin of it. The much more obvious choice of the genesis of the name is that it's a transcription of the Greek Ἰησοῦ, which is Jesus' name in certain cases. Note that some older English texts also call Jesus "Jesu".

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

These sources attest to the fact that Christians believed this. But for the most part, they're not independent, at least the Jewish ones. They're not describing an independent view of Jesus through Jewish eyes, they're responding to Christian views. It's not independent sources. They're hostile, but they're responding to Christian views with hostility, not reluctantly agreeing to the Christian narrative about Jesus.

Note also that the author is not, in fact, a historian of any sort. He admits he's biased, which he is. But he's a biased author, not a biased historian.