The biggest issue I see is that their entire portfolio consists only a small number of staged outdoor shots from each wedding. If you've got a good/thorough portfolio why would you only show these?
*Staged shots are not very demanding of the photographer in terms of timing/positioning whereas getting the important shots as they happen during a wedding are.
*Outdoor shots in good light are not very demanding of gear or technique in using that gear. Whereas indoor shots with lower light levels is.
*And if flash is allowed (i.e. reception/staged shots) I would expect the photographer to have/use/know how to use flash (not exclusively). There is no evidence of them using supplemental lighting.
If they had only one wedding in their portfolio but it showed their work indoor, outdoor, staged, random, natural light, supplemental light, etc.... in other words "completely," I would possibly be less concerned.
Personal opinion:
The images presented are rather small and therefore hard to judge critically (and that may be intentional) but;
Some images appear soft/blurry for no apparent reason... in some cases it *cold be* a creative choice, but it's not a choice *I* would have made. In other cases it just looks like a bad shot. (there are images with intentionally out of focus parts... I'm not talking about those)
Some images use selective color... I *hate* selective color in 99% of the images where I see it used. And I don't like it here either.
Some images have "textures" overlaid... probably a "creative choice." But it can also be used to hide flaws and try to create/save an otherwise poor image.
I don't think they are very good at editing images... And I think their use of selective color and textures is part of that.
Whoever you choose, make sure you see examples of *all* of the types of shots you expect in *all* of the settings/situations you expect your wedding to present.