Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita Falls, Texas

The reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, friendliness, and responsiveness across several years of service. Pricing is frequently described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor actively tries to minimize customer costs. Project completion signals are positive but less explicitly detailed — most reviewers indicate work was finished as planned and on time, and one reviewer notably states problems were never repeated, suggesting reliable first-time resolution. Experience is supported by references to years in the plumbing business, effective problem-solving in complex situations, and consistently high-quality workmanship. However, all reviews are significantly outdated, with the most recent dating to late 2016 and the majority from 2012–2015, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from October 2016 — over 8 years ago. No reviews from the past 12 months exist. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review with text 'unknown' (2015-02-04) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• ONE VAGUE REVIEW: 'It went very well.' (2012-01-27) provides no specific dimension data and was not counted toward any dimension score.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS NAMED: Reviews reference 'Connor/Conner Reeves,' 'Bob,' and 'Mark Reeves' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or different individuals operating under one listing. This inconsistency raises questions about review attribution accuracy.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews are brief and non-specific (e.g., 'prompt, courteous, and professional, at a fair and reasonable price'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail in some reviews reduces evidentiary weight.
• ALL RATINGS ARE 5-STAR: Every review with a rating is 5.0 out of 5.0, which warrants mild caution, though the volume is too small to definitively flag as manipulation.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the complete absence of recent reviews, ambiguity around which contractor(s) are being reviewed, and a small total review count — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.

Solomon and Son Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous service highlighted across multiple reviews. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited mentions. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one detailed 2022 review documenting unreliability, no-shows, and repeated delays on commitments—a critical failure in this dimension. Technical experience is evident in quick problem-solving but mentioned infrequently. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects solid professionalism offset by serious reliability concerns that would deter repeat business.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2021-2022 (2-3 years old). Only one review from 2024 provides current performance data. Historical reliability issues may or may not persist.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Strong positive reviews contrast sharply with one detailed negative review documenting no-shows and repeated broken commitments. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible performance changes over time.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits confidence in any dimension. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-stakes hiring decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data. The 2024 review suggests current service may be strong, but the 2022 no-show incident raises serious concerns about reliability that warrant direct verification before hiring.

Mr. G's Plumbing receives generally positive feedback across most dimensions, with pricing being a particular strength — multiple reviewers explicitly praised fair, transparent, and budget-friendly costs with no hidden charges. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a 2-star review describing a rude technician who lectured a customer, and a 1-star review describing a complete breakdown in communication and follow-through. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: the 1-star review from 2014 describes a job that was never completed, no estimate given, and no contact after the initial visit — a serious flag. Experience scores are moderate-to-positive, with reviewers noting quick, knowledgeable work, though the sample is small. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2011–2021, with nothing usable from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in current performance.

• THREE reviews contain only the word 'unknown' or very vague text ('Very well') with no usable detail — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• Several older reviews (2011–2014) carry 5-star ratings with minimal detail, which may reflect platform norms of the era but cannot be weighted heavily.
• No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of July 2021) — the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review from 2014 describes a serious project abandonment: no estimate provided, no follow-up contact, and work never completed. This is a significant project completion failure.
• The 2-star review from 2021 (the most recent review) describes a rude technician — this is the freshest data point and is weighted accordingly as a professionalism concern.
• Most reviews are 3–10+ years old. Recency is low across the dataset, which substantially limits reliability of the overall score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a mix of older reviews, three unusable entries, no recent reviews within the past few years, and at least two credible negative experiences that reveal real service inconsistencies.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of punctuality, friendly demeanor, and confident communication. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews — each job was resolved fully and efficiently. Pricing received favorable mention in two reviews, with one customer noting the final cost came in below expectations and another implying fair pricing by contrasting B&E against contractors who give 'marshmallow prices.' Experience and technical skill are referenced in two reviews, particularly in the detailed third review which highlights problem-solving ability and technical knowledge. However, the total review count is very low, limiting the reliability of these scores.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is sufficiently varied and specific to avoid a fake review flag, the absence of any critical feedback means negative dimensions may be entirely unrepresented.
• The most recent review is from September 2024, one is from April 2024, and one is from December 2023 — all within the past 12 months, which is a positive recency signal, but the small sample size limits confidence.
• No mentions of callbacks, warranty follow-through, or post-job issues — these aspects of project completion remain untested in this dataset.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a very early-stage signal — directionally positive but not statistically reliable until a larger review sample is available.

All four reviews speak positively about Monty's Plumbing across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for professionalism, fair pricing, timely completion, and technical competence. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with all four reviewers referencing courteous, responsive, and pleasant interactions. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair or reasonable in three reviews, including one that directly compared Monty's favorably against a competitor's higher quote. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting timely arrivals, work finished quickly, and thorough follow-through. Experience is evidenced by specific mentions of knowledgeability and correct sizing/installation guidance, though the sample size remains small. Scores are held conservative given the limited review count.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One review (2019-03-15) is over 5 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight. It is also extremely brief with no specific detail, limiting its usefulness.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a non-representative sample.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, one of which is over 5 years old, making the score directionally positive but statistically unreliable — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Ron receives strong praise in three of four reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, honest pricing, and quality workmanship — including an emergency after-hours call handled quickly and efficiently. However, one review explicitly describes two consecutive no-shows with no communication, which is a serious professionalism failure that meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is positive but based on only two mentions, limiting confidence in that dimension. The review set is very small (4 reviews) and spans over a decade, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current service quality.

• Very small review set (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2020 — the most recent review is over 4 years old. No data exists for the past 12 months. Current service quality is unknown.
• One 1-star review documents two separate no-show incidents with no communication, which is a significant reliability concern that contrasts sharply with the positive reviews.
• The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and may no longer reflect current business practices — it was included in scoring but carries reduced relevance.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning more than a decade, with no recent data available, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — treat with significant caution.