Steps to evaluate a good ICO:
1 Overall rating (overview)
2 main page
3 Power Forum (Forum)
4 Transaction Graph (Chart)
5 Trading volume (volume) 24h
6 Scale of investment capital (Market Cap)
7 Price rate
8 Papers proving ... (POS, POW, DPOS)
9 Current Supply (Current Offer)
10 Total supply (Total supply)
11 time a block (s)
12 Master / Supper / Full buttons
13 Mining / Ritual / Havest / Reward
Section / block
15 Budget for finance
16 development teams (development team)
The Elements
18 smart contracts
19 Reward mechanism (Reward)
MultiSig
21 Transaction Fee (Fee)
22 Block size (Blocksize);
23 Purse Purse (wallet)
24 Send Message (Private Message)
25 Inflation (Inflation)
26 Compare crypto with industry
27 WhitePaper
28 Path clearly visible
29 live support (slack, tele)
30 Youtube channels
Social Network (FB, steemit)
32 Twitter channels
33 Blockchain Explorer
34 fully hidden
35 new blockchain / new technology
36 Testnet
37 payment utilities
38 Practical applications
39 Example Name (Alias)
And through the 39 criteria above, I choose AION, ICON, NEO, WANCHAIN, BITDGREE, CURRENT !!
The list is cool, but it's too long for evaluation of every ico project. It is too time-consuming. Other things just can't be known during the ico stage. There's no market capitalization, price, trading volume and transaction graph at that time. Some points from the list are rather hard to understand, like 28, people can disagree on such matters. I would say that the most important things are good project description, minimum competitors in that sphere, nice investors and interest of crypto community (lot's of pages in ann thread, thousands of subscribers in social networks.