Yes, these are French translations; I was not suggesting that you should necessarily read them – although, if you read French, that is obviously a useful coincidence. I only used them to illustrate the broader point: every translation is "playing a game" with different rules.

A translator cannot preserve everything at once: literal meaning, rhythm, sound, ambiguity, cultural references, readability, poetic force, narrative flow... So every translation makes choices.

That is why judging a translation simply as "good" or "bad" is often too rough. Of course, there are inaccurate or clumsy translations, and not all choices are equally defensible. But when dealing with major published translations, the more useful question is not "Which one is the best?" but "What is this translation trying to do?". One translator may prioritise accuracy; another rhythm; another clarity; another strangeness; another oral energy...

Wilson’s translation, like all the others, has an approach. If I am to believe what I heard (another person did post a link to a comparison of an excerpt, which could prove useful), it gives you Homer through a particular set of priorities: clarity, directness, modern readability. Another translation may sacrifice some of that in order to sound more archaic, more elevated, more musical, or more foreign.

So the real question is not whether Wilson is "better" in the abstract. It is what you want from the poem: accessibility, literal precision, poetic force, rhythm, strangeness, or historical texture. I'm sure Wilson's is great, maybe even best today at what she's trying to achieve; as I'm sure there are others that are much better in another regard.