Find Nearby Plumbers In Stillwater, Oklahoma

PJ's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise responsiveness, friendliness, and prompt arrival — often citing specific technicians like Scott, Pete, Cole, and Erik — a substantial number of negative reviews describe the owner Paul as rude, condescending, and dismissive when disputes arise, dragging the score down significantly. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed, credible complaints about unexplained 'project billing,' charges for work not performed, rates far exceeding quoted amounts, and refusals to provide cost breakdowns — including reports filed with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed quickly and correctly, but several reviews document incomplete work, warranty refusals, incorrect installations not remedied, no-shows after scheduling, and jobs left in worse condition than before. Experience scores moderately; individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and knowledge, but there are credible accounts of incorrect installations, undertrained staff, and failure to diagnose problems correctly, preventing a higher score.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several reviews (notably the April 2025 and August 2024 cluster) are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail ('Perfect services and perfect work done!', 'Best In town', 'Had one of the best plumbing service experiences till date', 'Very co operative plumber'). These appear to be low-effort, possibly inauthentic reviews and were given reduced weight in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'The guys at P.J.'s Plumbing are top-notch...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-10-12. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE CONTENT DETECTED: The review about a gas dryer valve leak ('Noticed a small gas leak during maintenance on a dryer...') appears to be a near-duplicate of the first review in the 2025-05-10 entry ('PJ's plumbing had someone out within 4 hours to replace the valve'). Treated as one mention.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers filed formal complaints with Wisconsin DATCP and Consumer Protection Services regarding overcharging. One reviewer documented being charged $627.90 after being quoted $160/hr. Another was billed $3,045 for a water heater with no cost breakdown provided. Another was charged $896.70 for under 1.5 hours of work. These are not vague complaints — they include dollar amounts, dates, and regulatory filings.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe PJ's refusing to honor their own warranty or correct their own installation errors without additional charges. This is a significant pattern affecting both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most negative and detailed reviews span 2021–2024, meaning they are recent and highly relevant. Positive reviews are spread across all years but the recent positive reviews (2024–2025) include several suspected low-quality or fake entries, reducing their reliability.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner Paul specifically as rude, dismissive, threatening liens, hanging up on customers, and refusing to negotiate on disputed bills. This is a consistent behavioral pattern across many years and multiple reviewers, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (dated 2024-06-09, 1-star, about driving behavior and a restaurant) appears to be a dispute unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (63 total) spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the presence of suspected fake positive reviews and a strong pattern of serious, specific, and formally-reported negative experiences means the true service quality is likely at or below the calculated score, and prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

LK Wilson (operating as Starks Pro) shows significant weaknesses across all dimensions. Professionalism is mixed—one review praised helpfulness and same-day scheduling, but multiple reviews cite poor communication, unresponsiveness, and management failures. Pricing is a major concern with explicit complaints about high costs. Project completion is the most critical failure: one customer was abandoned mid-repair with a worsening AC unit and told to wait a week; another experienced a 5-week installation with repeated interruptions and poor status updates. Technical competence is questionable given the AC motor/compressor diagnostic confusion and failure to resolve the initial problem. The company appears to prioritize new jobs over honoring callbacks and completing work properly.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2018 and 2016) are significantly older than 12 months; only 2 of 4 reviews are from 2024. Recency is limited.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Review from 2018 explicitly describes incomplete work and refusal to return to finish the job. Review from 2016 describes repeated job interruptions and deprioritization.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY CONCERN: 2018 review raises serious questions about whether technicians misdiagnosed the problem (motor vs. compressor), suggesting either lack of expertise or intentional upselling.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite poor internal communication, spotty status updates, and unresponsive management.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: Explicit mention of 'very expensive' pricing with no offsetting positive value comments.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 of 4 reviews from past 12 months) and small sample size, but the pattern of complaints across professionalism, completion, and pricing is consistent and specific enough to warrant concern. The company's willingness to abandon incomplete work is a serious red flag.

The review set is small, spans nearly a decade, and contains a significant negative review that heavily impacts scoring. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension but is dragged down sharply by a detailed 2021 complaint describing repeated no-shows, unresponsiveness, and poor communication — which is the most recent and therefore most heavily weighted data point. Project completion is similarly mixed: the 2012 Hurricane Sandy review shows follow-through and a no-charge return visit, but the 2021 review describes being left waiting four times with no resolution. Pricing received only one implicit positive signal (no charge for a second trip), making that score low-confidence. Experience was described as merely 'EH' in the negative review and positively but vaguely in older reviews, yielding a conservative mid-range score.

• Most positive reviews are from 2012–2013, making them over 10 years old and significantly less reliable as indicators of current service quality.
• The most recent review (2021) is a detailed, credible 1-star complaint describing a pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness — this is the highest-recency signal and should be weighted most heavily.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, Date: 2014) contains no usable text ('unknown') and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The positive reviews are brief and generic ('very professional', 'very good') with minimal specifics, which limits their evidentiary value.
• Small sample size of only 4 usable reviews spanning 9+ years makes trend analysis unreliable.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence due to the very small review sample, the age of most positive reviews, and the presence of a recent detailed negative review that suggests a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (described as 'very professional') and experience/skill (described as 'knowledgeable'), both scoring 90 based on positive language. However, no information is provided regarding pricing, value for money, or project completion details. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned
• No explicit project completion details mentioned (though multiple projects referenced, no timeline or completion status explicitly stated)
• Generic praise language without specific examples limits confidence in scores

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At minimum, 3 independent reviews are needed to establish reliable patterns across dimensions.

The single review provided does not actually evaluate the contractor being analyzed. Instead, it appears to be a misdirected comment comparing this company (Stillwater Mechanical) to a different company (Western Mechanical), and does not contain any firsthand account of service received from Stillwater Mechanical. No scoreable dimensions — professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience — are addressed with direct evidence. As a result, no WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review does not appear to be a genuine customer experience review of the contractor being evaluated. It reads as a misdirected or comparative comment referencing a different company (Western Mechanical).
• The 1-star rating may not reflect actual service received from this contractor, as the reviewer does not describe any direct interaction with them.
• Review is dated 2014 — over 10 years old — and carries no recency value whatsoever.

This score cannot be trusted for any decision-making purpose; there is effectively zero usable data — only one review exists, it does not describe a direct service experience with this contractor, and it is over a decade old.

This single review documents severe failures in professionalism and project completion. The contractor promised service, failed to show on two scheduled days, and did not follow up despite customer attempts to reschedule. Communication was minimal and unresponsive. The reviewer explicitly states they cannot assess plumbing skills because the job was never attempted. With only one review and insufficient data across multiple dimensions, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Only one review provides data; confidence in any dimension is severely limited
• No pricing data available
• No experience/workmanship data available — job was never completed
• Review is recent (February 2024) and detailed with specific dates and communication attempts, suggesting authenticity

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). The single review does provide clear evidence of poor professionalism and project completion failure, but generalizing from one experience is unreliable.