I've been reading a bit on Wikipedia about the Arab Revolt and watching the Great War series on Youtube; and I started to feel that the revolt was a Hejazi or Hashemite Revolt than a complete nationalistic revolt by all Arabs. In Iraq, Baghdad is captured by the British months before Aqaba, and there are no uprisings, that I know of, which attack the Ottoman troops. In the west, it was more of a slow push from south to north, and the Arabs in big population centers like Damascus or Aleppo did not rise up to join the revolt before the British and Hashemite forces actually captured the cities. To me, it feels like the cause of the revolt was the ambitions of Sharif Hussein and his dislike of the Ottomans rather than a nationalistic sentiment in Arabs, and the nationalistic part of revolt is more a propaganda to increase its legitimacy.
What are the historians thoughts about the revolt? Am I wrong in my assessment and did the Arabs from the rest of the Empire actually join the revolt in a nationalistic goal to create an independent Arabia?
You're right actually. Husayn was not an Arab nationalist, and he did not think in terms of the ideology of Arabism. The Arab Revolt at first intended by Huseyn to establish a hereditary kingdom or principality for his family in the Hejaz as a sharif and amir of Mecca, think of Muhammad Ali and Egypt for example. Although sporadic support emerged in Syria, it failed to gather overall organized support in Arab-speaking provinces of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, most Arab figures at the time actually condemns Huseyn's actions as it's dividing the Ottoman-Islamic Empire at a time when unity was crucial.
Rather than a popular uprising against the Ottoman Empire, the Arab Revolt was a more narrowly based enterprise relying on tribal levies from Arabia and dominated by the Hashemite family effort