Harry, With all due respect, I do find your views and comments quite odd especially considering the fact that the answers were revealed as promised in the next post here.

1-Does the image look sharp to you?
The eagle face looks sharp. The body, though, especially the wing, is too sharp. It looks a little cartoonish, more like it was drawn for a nature mag than photographed by some guy in a blind or crawling on a forest floor, then the eagle head photo cut and pasted on top in processing. I know that the cartoonish effect can happen in the software if you shot in RAW with HDR-capable software and go a little overboard with the luminence and vibrance switches. Also the wing doesn’t match the rest of the body, the shoulder or the breast. So did you use a loop to increase the visibility of those feathers?
Also, that light behind the bird is really light for the face to be so bright. Frankly, the whole shot doesn’t look flat enough for a really long telephoto. That 800 would have pancaked that poor bird’s head and there would have been too much atmospheric interference — which may account for the processing effect?

2-What gear did I use to create the image?
The romance of the 800 or 500 is attractive. But considering the light, the compression, the heavy brightness to one side, I’m betting the 70-200, maybe with a big flash or reflector (if you can keep the bird still that long, unless you shot him in a zoo, which is what I do for my best shots).

3-What was the effective focal length of the gear that I used? Lens length X teleconverter (or teleconverterss) X multiplier effect (1.3) of the camera.
I won’t swear you used a teleconverter with a 70-200, considering you have that 400 up there. But I’m still not as confident that that 400 OD can stand up to a 500L, mainly because it was made, from what I hear, for quickdraw sports rather than precision nature photography.
I just see a nice shot, a nice pose and a good, saleable photo.