I'm no expert but going off of Wikipedia, I don't see the issue with the passage you quoted?
The nomenclature for colonial species seems to be that even if the colony can be a single organism, the parts are still referred to as animals (e.g. "A zooid is a single animal that is part of a colonial animal.")
But anyway, is there even a strict definition for what an organism is?
> is there even a strict definition for what an organism is?
I don't know how "strict" it is but the dictionary definition of "organism" is "an individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life." There is no requirement that it consist of parts that are physically connected to one another.
The nomenclature for colonial species seems to be that even if the colony can be a single organism, the parts are still referred to as animals (e.g. "A zooid is a single animal that is part of a colonial animal.")
But anyway, is there even a strict definition for what an organism is?