BUG: fixes formatted value error for missing sheet (#27676)
Fixes a formatted message at [io.excel._odfreader line 62](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/master/pandas/io/excel/_odfreader.py#L63)

- [x] closes #27676
- [x] tests added / passed
- [x] passes `black pandas`
- [ ] passes `git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff`
- [x] whatsnew entry

Thanks. Could you release note under "Bug fixes" in `doc/source/v0.25.1.rst` and a test ensuring that the sheet name is including the the error message? You can ignore the codecov failure. Looks good. Can you check test coverage for this though? Should have one for all excel / odf engines  Interesting that all of the engines raise differently... @ilogue do you have an idea of effort to align all of these messages? Would ideally like to do here if not too much effort but could also leave to a follow up if non-trivial @WillAyd by align do you mean catch the exceptions thrown by the other packages and rethrow a common pandas exception? Or ask the maintainers of those packages to change their error message? Yea I mean raise one common error message from `get_sheet_by_name` in the various excel readers. So for example since xlrd raises an XLRDError would catch and re-raise a ValueError that matches what would happen with openpyxl and odfpy @ilogue looks like the CI is failing. Do these tests pass for you locally? No they don't work, because they currently target all engines. So we could 
1. Moved the test back to the engine specific module
2. Implement https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/27677#issuecomment-517372330 Sorry didn't mean to close, on my phone Do you have an opinion on which option is better? Hello @ilogue! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for [PEP 8](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008) issues, and found:





There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! :beers: 

##### Comment last updated at 2019-10-25 16:02:56 UTC > Do you have an opinion on which option is better?

Yes I'd say 1. and went ahead and did that. I absolutely agree with @WillAyd taht going forward it would be better to have a uniform way of dealing with these, but think it may be outside of the scope of this PR Can you merge master and move this to the 1.0.0 whatsnew? Also OK with approach but can you open a follow up to unify messaging across all engines? @ilogue can you fix up merge conflicts and revert any changes to 0.25.2 whatsnew? > @ilogue can you fix up merge conflicts and revert any changes to 0.25.2 whatsnew?

@WillAyd done Great thanks @ilogue 