The manual's introduction page mostly consists of a Log4j 2 section. That section is somewhat long for an introduction, and it could be confusing. This ticket reports a few close issues:

1. The paragraph initially seems to suggest that Log4j 1 is still maintained, saying "However, through the years development on it has slowed down."
2. The paragraph implies that SLF4J+Logback and Log4j 2 are the only alternatives to Log4j 1, when several other logging frameworks (including Reload4j) exist.
3. It is not clear what the list contains. It appears to be a comparison with both Log4j 1 and SLF4J+Logback. For example, it is unclear if "Support for custom log levels" is a benefit when compared to Log4j 1 only, SLF4J+Logback too, or even just the latter.
4. The reasons for putting so much emphasis on a comparison with Log4j 1 are unclear, or even just outdated. It would be good to indicate that Log4j 1 has known vulnerabilities, but beyond that, I don't see why such an in-depth comparison would warrant inclusion in the introduction at this point.

I don't have a clear solution to propose, but I would first recommend to retitle the section "Log4j 1 and SLF4J+Logback" and reevaluate how prominent a comparison with Log4j 1 should remain. Another option would be to use a comparison matrix rather than a list.