Find Nearby Plumbers In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The single review provided contains no usable data about the contractor's work quality, professionalism, pricing, or project completion. The reviewer is not a customer of this contractor — they are a third party who has been receiving misdirected calls due to an incorrect phone number listed on Yelp and the contractor's business card. No service was performed or evaluated, and no WW Score can be calculated from this submission.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is not from a customer and contains zero service-related feedback. It cannot be used to score any dimension.
• The review highlights a critical business listing error: an incorrect phone number on Yelp and business cards is causing misdirected customer contacts, which may be resulting in lost business and customer frustration.

A WW Score cannot be produced — there are no customer service reviews to analyze, and the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews has not been met.

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across all four dimensions. The contractor arrived unprepared without necessary parts or tools, forcing the customer to source materials herself, which reflects very poor professionalism and experience. The core allegation is deeply serious: the reviewer believes the contractor diagnosed a non-existent problem (a locked gas meter, not a broken water heater) and charged for an unnecessary installation, keeping the functional old unit as well — a pattern consistent with dishonest or fraudulent conduct. Project completion is marginally acknowledged in that a new heater was physically installed, but the underlying problem was never correctly diagnosed or resolved. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious allegation of fraudulent diagnosis: reviewer asserts the contractor replaced a functional water heater after failing to check whether the gas meter was locked, then charged full installation fees.
• Allegation that contractor deliberately damaged or fabricated a broken part to justify the unnecessary replacement.
• Contractor reportedly retained the customer's old, functional water heater — a potential financial gain from the alleged deception.
• Review is dated 2019 (over 5 years old) — recency is low and contractor performance may have changed since this incident.
• Only one data point exists; all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review from 2019 and cannot be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; the allegations are serious but unverified, and additional reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.

This single review speaks positively across multiple dimensions. The reviewer highlights integrity and transparency, noting the plumber resolved the issue on the first visit (project completion), educated the customer proactively (professionalism and experience), and even pointed them toward an affordable DIY solution rather than upselling (price friendly). All dimension scores are conservative given only one review exists. The review is specific and detailed enough to be considered credible, but no reliable WW Score can be calculated from a single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to a single mention each — treat all scores with significant caution.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns or recency trends with only one review.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable assessment of Quail Springs Plumbing — only one review was provided, which is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about consistent performance across any dimension.

Only a single 1-star review is available, which describes a serious failure in communication and follow-through. The reviewer explicitly states they were promised an estimate the morning after a visit on 10/18/22 but received neither an estimate nor a phone call for nine days, and only heard back after posting a negative review. This reflects very poor professionalism in terms of responsiveness and communication. Project completion cannot be fully assessed as no work was performed, but the failure to even deliver a promised estimate represents a significant breakdown in follow-through. Pricing and experience dimensions cannot be scored as they were not mentioned.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The review references a prior negative review and a contractor response containing alleged misstatements, suggesting an ongoing dispute. This context may color the tone but does not invalidate the factual claims made.
• No positive reviews exist to balance this assessment. The score is based entirely on one negative data point and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Review is from October 2022, which is over 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.

This score is based on a single negative review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The review highlights same-day availability, quick resolution of the issue, and good customer service, which speaks positively to professionalism and responsiveness. Project completion is implied by the issue being fixed quickly, though no detail is given about complexity or follow-through. Experience is loosely inferred from the quick fix but lacks any technical specifics. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Review is generic and brief with no specific technical details; confidence in all dimension scores is LOW due to single-review basis.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with only 1 review, but the review lacks specificity which limits its evidential value.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is needed before any dimension scores can be trusted.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. This single review documents severe deficiencies in project completion (improper fittings, wrong locations, above-slab height installation requiring removal), professionalism (aggressive behavior on private property with firearm, bizarre conduct), and experience (fundamental installation errors). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. Pricing dimension is not mentioned.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Review documents criminal history, fraudulent behavior, law enforcement involvement, and threatening conduct with firearm on private property
• LEGAL CONCERNS: Reviewer reports contact with district attorney and plans to file with Attorney General
• SAFETY RED FLAG: Presence of firearm and aggressive behavior documented on video
• This review represents an extreme negative case and should not be treated as representative without corroborating reviews

No WW Score can be calculated — insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required). The single review contains extremely serious allegations including criminal history, fraudulent work, and threatening behavior that warrant independent verification before any hiring decision.