I am a full-time student and may not significantly contribute to Wikipedia for weeks or months at a time. However, I consult it almost every day (not as a citable source :)), so I will probably see messages relatively quickly.
Note: One of the Wikipedia guidelines I'm most wary of is the "original research" guideline; if it seems like anything I've added is bordering on original research, please let me know and/or correct it as you see fit. I am a biology student, and I like to dig very deeply into topics, especially in areas I have an active interest in, and I sometimes have trouble distinguishing important from unimportant information (something I have a handle on but has historically been a problem). This can sometimes manifest as excessive detail and/or drawing what I believe to be my own logical conclusions or inferences that nonetheless do not belong on Wikipedia until/unless they make their way into a published paper.
Phylogenetic tree on Apoidea is c. 2018 and does not match the phg. relationships given in family articles, e.g. Bembici(n/d)ae given as outgroup of Sphecidae rather than as subfamily nested within Crabronidae
Move to a template of its own and transclude onto relevant page(s)?
Hemaris genus of hawkmoths, especially the North American "clearwings":
diffinis – update: diffinis as species complex; splitting off of thetis in 2009, aethra in 2018; potential remaining cryptic species (Schmidt 2009, 2018)
gracilis – do a quick review of the literature; occurrence? decline? very spotty distribution and many modern records are unreliable or wrong e.g. actually thysbe or diffinis