docs: mention nano's major features directly instead of referring

In addition, the referral in the FAQ was to nano's home page,
which does not mention any advantages or features of nano.

doc/faq.html

@@ -221,10 +221,9 @@
 
 <h1><a name="6"></a>6. Advocacy and Licensing</h1>
 <h3><a name="6.1"></a>6.1. Why should I use nano instead of Pico?</h3>
-<blockquote><p>There are many reasons to use nano instead of Pico. A more complete list can be found at the <a href="https://nano-editor.org/">nano homepage</a>.</p></blockquote>
+<blockquote><p>If you want features like undo/redo, syntax highlighting, line numbers, soft-wrapping, opening multiple files at once, an interface localized to your language, or search and replace with support for regular expressions, then you want nano.</p></blockquote>
 <h3><a name="6.2"></a>6.2. Why should I use Pico instead of nano?</h3>
-<blockquote><p>Again, check out the <a href="https://nano-editor.org/">nano homepage</a> for a good summary of reasons. It really is a matter of personal preference as to which editor you should use. If you're the type of person who likes using the original version of a program, then Pico is the editor for you. If you don't mind sacrificing mailer integration with Pine, and are looking for a few more features, as well as a 'better' license in terms of adding your own changes, nano is the way to go.</p>
-<p>Note that the last of these no longer applies to the new version of Pine, <a href="http://www.washington.edu/alpine/">Alpine</a>, which is under the Apache License, version 2.0.</p></blockquote>
+<blockquote><p>If you use your editor only to write emails or other texts and have no need for the above-mentioned features, then Pico will do fine for you.</p></blockquote>
 <h3><a name="6.3"></a>6.3. What is so bad about the older Pine license?</h3>
 <blockquote><p>The U of W license for older versions of Pine and Pico is not considered truly Free Software according to both the Free Software Foundation and the <a href="https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian Free Software Guidelines</a>. The main problem regards the limitations on distributing derived works: according to UW, you can distribute their software, and you can modify it, but you can not do both, i.e. distribute modified binaries.</p></blockquote>
 <h3><a name="6.4"></a>6.4. Okay, well, what mail program should I use then?</h3>