Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

Only a single review is available, making any score highly unreliable. The one review describes a no-show appointment with no proactive communication, which is a clear professionalism failure — the contractor forgot the appointment entirely and did not call ahead to notify the customer. Project completion is also scored very low as the contractor never arrived to perform any work. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither topic was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2014 — this data is over 10 years old and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• No data available for Pricing or Experience dimensions — these could not be scored.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, decade-old review with no data on pricing or experience.

Only one review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly mentioned affordability and quick response time, supporting limited scores in pricing and professionalism respectively. No specific details were provided about workmanship quality, project completion, or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is positive in tone but lacks the specificity needed to assign high-confidence scores in any dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is generic and lacks specific detail about the work performed, scope of project, or technical outcomes — limits scoring confidence.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or isolated experience from a single data point.
• Project Completion and Experience dimensions have NO DATA and were excluded from scoring entirely.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is extremely negative across all dimensions—documenting poor workmanship (uneven cuts, incorrect assembly, epoxy patch attempt), damage to customer property (hardwood floor gouges), lack of responsiveness to complaints, and aggressive billing demands—a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score. At minimum, 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy assessment.

• Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old); does not reflect current business practices
• Severe quality and professionalism issues documented in this single review, but cannot be generalized without additional data
• Customer dispute over payment and refusal to correct defective work raises serious red flags about business integrity

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. Additional recent reviews are essential before making any business decision based on this contractor's performance.

This single review documents severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor damaged property (cabinets, washing machine), failed to complete promised follow-up work despite full payment, missed two confirmed appointments, and became unresponsive to customer communications. While the review provides explicit evidence of poor professionalism, incomplete project delivery, and questionable workmanship, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. This review alone is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall rating.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from May 2022 (approximately 2+ years old). Current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional data.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. At minimum, 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels across dimensions.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (prompt, friendly, helpful, responsive to questions) and project completion (worked to define and resolve the issue), both scoring well. However, pricing and experience are not addressed in this review. With only 1 review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines (minimum 3 reviews required).
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required for reliable scoring.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2016, making it over 8 years old and of very limited reliability. The review briefly mentions plumbing repairs and dishwasher installation were performed, suggesting some breadth of work completed, but provides no descriptive detail about quality, professionalism, pricing, or outcome. The 5-star rating is noted but cannot be weighted heavily given the complete absence of substantive commentary. No dimensions could be scored with meaningful confidence, and professionalism and pricing received no data at all.

• Only 1 review total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2016 — over 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Review contains no descriptive detail — it reads more like a service log entry than a genuine customer review. This raises concerns about authenticity or usefulness.
• 5-star rating with no supporting narrative — cannot validate the rating against any stated experience.

This score report is essentially unusable for decision-making purposes — there is only one vague, 8-year-old review with no substantive detail across any scored dimension.