the Sacrificed worked, but was it a good one?

I played this game, sacrificed once unnecessarily, disregard that, but the second time it won me the game, I see it could have been played differently by my opponent, so i'm questioning if was it a good decision? i am playing the black pieces

the best way to find out is to have the computer analyze it for you

from what it looks like, white could have defended if he captured the rook with the queen instead of king

No it was a terrible move

25. Qxf2 Be3 26. Rxe3 wins easily for white

You are much better (technically winning, but not in a rapid game) to start with (move 14-15). At that point, you give up a knight for two connected passed pawns, with open lines. The position is dynamically balanced, but in a rapid game, you have a huge practical advantage as your position is much easier to play. The course of the game proves this as your opponent makes several mistakes (retreating the Ng5 on move 20 should be considered). After loosing the Ng5 on move 23, White is caught in a crossfire. Black is winning with simple moves (bring your rooks, push your passed pawns, etc...).
So, even if it were correct, why would you sacrifice a rook and take the slightest risk ? Neither line (25.Kxf2 Be3+ 26.Kg3 or 25.Qxf2) is complety clear with such a short time control. In a winning position, a tactical operation is only justified when it is the cleanest (least risky) way to finish the game.

I agree with your first sacrifice (the one you call "unnecessary", which is true in itself) because it is the most appropriate way forward in a game with a short time control. I totally disagree with your second sacrifice, even if it turned out to be correct after lenghty analysis (which it didn't, as 25.Qxf2 draws by perpetual according to Stockfish).