Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. The most recent review (2020) documents critical failures: no-show after initial visit, lack of PPE/shoe coverings, overpricing ($255 vs competitor's $140), and broken promises. Two older reviews (2016–2018) praise responsiveness, honesty, and quality work. The dramatic negative shift in the most recent review, combined with very limited mention counts across all dimensions, suggests either significant service degradation or operational inconsistency. The WW Score reflects the serious professionalism and completion failures documented in the recent review, heavily weighted against older positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Nov 2020) is 4+ years old; current service quality is unknown
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: Most recent review documents no-show, abandoned work, PPE violations, and overpricing—these are severe red flags
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 2016–2018 praise and 2020 failure suggests either service degradation or inconsistent operations
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 reviews total; all dimensions scored on 2 mentions or fewer, limiting reliability
• PRICING DISCREPANCY: $255 quote vs $140 competitor quote raises concerns about fair pricing practices

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (3 total) and extreme inconsistency between older and recent feedback. The most recent review documents serious failures that cannot be ignored, but the age of all reviews and small sample size mean current service quality is uncertain. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish a reliable assessment.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making any score inherently uncertain. Two reviews are strongly positive — praising promptness, professionalism, fair pricing, and efficient work — while two reviews raise serious concerns about incomplete work and unprofessional conduct. The most alarming review describes a $2,000 job where the plumber failed to check running toilets, causing costly water waste, then threatened a mechanic's lien rather than accepting accountability. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with two of three relevant reviews explicitly describing unfinished or incorrectly completed work. The positive reviews are older (2013–2014) and the negative reviews span 2012–2015, so no recency advantage can be applied to either side.

• All 4 reviews are from 2012–2015 — none are within the past 12 months. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current performance.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews severely limits reliability. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• One review describes a serious conduct issue: threatening a mechanic's lien against a customer who disputed charges for damage caused by the contractor's own oversight. This is a significant professionalism and ethics red flag.
• Two of four reviews explicitly describe incomplete or incorrectly completed work, which is a meaningful pattern given the small sample size.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both negative and positive experiences.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all of which are over 9 years old, a deeply split sentiment pattern, and at least one serious conduct complaint that cannot be offset by the positive reviews without a larger, more recent data set.

Evans Pro Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across a small sample of reviews. One customer reported a catastrophic failure: incomplete water line repair ($2,000 job) that leaked within a week, followed by non-responsiveness and abandoned callbacks. Two other reviews praise efficiency, pricing, and workmanship for sink/faucet installation and drain clearing. The stark contrast between the 1-star complaint (with specific, detailed allegations) and generic 5-star praise raises concerns about reliability and follow-through on complex jobs. With only 3 reviews and limited mention density across dimensions, confidence in this score is low.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review alleges incomplete work, non-responsiveness, and abandoned callbacks on a $2,000 job—serious red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• Two 5-star reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'awesome job', 'great company') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with the detailed complaint.
• Possible name inconsistency: Review 1 refers to 'Evans', Review 2 mentions 'Evan's Pro Plumbing', Review 3 also mentions 'Evan's Pro Plumbing'—minor but worth noting.
• Sample size is very small (n=3); score reliability is severely limited.
• Most recent review is from January 2024 (within 12 months), but the two positive reviews are from late 2023 and may predate the serious failure reported in the most recent review.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. With only 3 reviews and a serious unresolved complaint about incomplete work and non-responsiveness, the score does not reliably represent contractor quality. The detailed nature of the negative review and the contractor's apparent non-response to a callback request are significant red flags that outweigh generic positive feedback. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a hiring decision.

Ark Valley Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its 5 reviews. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by three negative reviews describing no-call-before-arrival, missed appointments, scheduling failures, and a job left incomplete mid-project — these issues are serious and recurring. The two positive reviews praise friendliness, fair pricing, and willingness to work late, which provides some upward pull on pricing and experience scores, but those dimensions rest on only 2 mentions each and must be treated conservatively. Project completion is a notable concern: one review explicitly describes a job that took three days to finish due to poor planning, a rushed exit, and a messy cleanup, while another describes a no-show that was never resolved. The overall WW Score of 44.1 reflects a contractor with genuine positives among loyal customers but a documented pattern of scheduling unreliability and incomplete follow-through that cannot be ignored.

• Three of the five reviews are 1-star and describe serious, specific failures in scheduling, communication, and job completion — these are credible negative signals, not outliers.
• Two of the three negative reviews (2012) are over 12 years old; the most recent negative review is from 2017. The two positive reviews are from 2024 and early 2024, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the sample is too small to confirm a trend.
• The positive reviews are somewhat generic in detail ('great clean work,' 'always get the job done') compared to the highly specific negative reviews, which reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• With only 5 total reviews spanning 12 years, this score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY. More recent and numerous reviews are needed before drawing firm conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size limits all confidence assessments significantly.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning over a decade and should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

The review set is heavily polarized: two detailed 1-star reviews describe a serious pattern of abandonment — the contractor accepted near-full or full payment upfront, disappeared for weeks, demanded additional money beyond the original quote, and ultimately left the job unfinished with no follow-through on calls. These two reviews alone severely drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews are largely older (2012–2014) and several lack any specific detail, limiting their evidentiary weight. One detailed positive review (Albert, 2013) provides genuine evidence of fair pricing, punctuality, and good communication, which partially supports the pricing and professionalism dimensions. Overall, the most recent and most detailed reviews paint a concerning picture of reliability and follow-through.

• Two reviews (2016-11-15) describe nearly identical experiences — same contractor, same pattern of upfront payment demand, disappearance, extra money request, and job abandonment. This may be two members of the same household or related parties reviewing the same incident, which could inflate the negative signal, but the specificity and detail of both reviews suggest they are genuine.
• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no detail — these have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews (2012–2013) are generic and lack specifics ('I had a great experience,' 'absolutely excellent') — these are treated with low evidentiary weight due to vagueness.
• All detailed positive reviews are from 2013–2014, making them over 10 years old. The most recent substantive reviews (2016) are both 1-star complaints. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in positive scores.
• The contractor appears to operate under at least two names or involves multiple individuals (Joe and Albert are both referenced), which may mean reviews are not all about the same person. This introduces ambiguity into the overall score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the dataset is small (9 reviews, 2 unusable), the positive reviews are largely outdated and generic, and the two most recent detailed reviews describe a serious pattern of non-completion and financial misconduct that materially undermines confidence in this contractor.

Bob Barnes receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension analyzed. The most critical and recurring failure is project abandonment — multiple reviewers describe work left unfinished, dirt unpacked, permits never pulled, and sewer lines improperly connected, with the contractor becoming unreachable after receiving payment. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by a consistent pattern of ghosting clients, failing to return calls, and not honoring commitments, despite reviewers frequently noting he is personally pleasant and friendly. Pricing concerns include one explicit allegation of price gouging and one reviewer charging for a permit that was never actually pulled. The only partial bright spot is one 4-star review noting competent sewer line work and fair pricing, but even that review documents a months-long follow-through failure. The overall picture is of a contractor who begins jobs adequately but routinely fails to complete them and becomes unresponsive once paid.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — Multiple independent reviews describe the same failure mode: contractor becomes unreachable and stops responding after receiving full or partial payment. This is a strong indicator of a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION — One reviewer explicitly states Bob charged for pulling a permit that was never actually pulled, meaning work was uninspected. This is a legal and safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE — The two most recent reviews (2024) are both 1-star and describe active, unresolved abandonment situations. The one positive review is from early 2024 but still documents a significant follow-through failure. The overall trend is not improving.
• OLDER REVIEWS — Two reviews are from 2018 and 2020 and were given reduced weight in scoring. However, they corroborate the same patterns seen in more recent reviews, suggesting long-standing issues.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERNS — Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specifics. No signs of coordinated fake positive reviews detected. The review set appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 6 reviews with usable data spanning 2018–2024; confidence is MODERATE due to the small sample size, but the consistency of failure patterns across multiple independent reviewers and multiple years significantly increases the reliability of the low score.